backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by InvertMe.. on Aug 27 at 10:23 PM


Traditional gas engine piston rings with a diamond performance coat (it's a bit hard to see, but note the untapered surface)  (Source: Speed Engineering)

Federal-Mogul's new LKZ ring tech is old hat for diesel engines, but cutting edge for gas ones. It offers a tapered surface and inequal downstroke/upstroke pressure profile. All this means better oil distribution leading to better fuel efficiency and better engine life.  (Source: LKZ)
Tiny change to engine could offer better lubrication for a more pleasurable experience

Think the standard gas engine can't measure up to hybrid vehicle performance?  A new gasoline engine breakthrough, along with recent innovations may invalidate that premise.

Admittedly, gasoline automobile engine at the turn of the millennium was disappointingly inefficient.  While there had been great advances in digital control and performance tuning, the base efficiency of the engine proved only slightly improved from designs of two decades prior.

Today that's starting to change.  There's two basic schools of thought.  One is to adopt a radical redesign, going for technologies like electric motor-driven hybrids or full-electric vehicles.  The other approach, equally promising, is to keep the gas engine, but to reevaluate every engine part and their operation.

Companies like Ford have enjoyed great success with this approach, employing engine technologies such as direct fuel injection and turbocharging to milk V8 performance out of a V6.  Now a breakthrough in the oil rings that line the cylinder head in gas engines and keep it lubricated with engine oil may allow even more impressive performance on a gas-burning engine.

An engine parts supplier called Federal-Mogul Corporation has managed to adapt a specialized two-piece oil ring design from diesel engines into a gasoline engine form.  The patented oil ring tech, known as an LKZ ring, not only can reduce oil consumption by 50 percent, but also reduces frictional losses by 15 percent (compared to standard conventional oil ring designs).

Where as traditional rings apply equal pressure on the downstroke and upstroke, the new ring design primarily provides pressure on the downstroke.  The surface inside the piston bore also employs a unique design, offering a tapered, two-step surface (versus an untapered surface in standard oil rings).

The result is that oil is more effectively returned to the oil pan, reducing the amount of oil that enters the combustion chamber.  The less oil entering the combustion chamber, the better, as this has numerous undesirable effects, such as wasting oil via combustion and coating the spark plugs with carbon byproducts, reducing their ability to combust gasoline.  The improved oil performance also leads to better cylinder lubrication and less friction.

The rings are available to enginemakers with a variety of coatings, including chrome, CKS (chrome ceramic coating) and GDC (Goetze diamond coating).  By selecting the right coating, engine makers can match the rings to their engine's intended performance profile, ensuring longevity.  For example, a more powerful engine would necessitate a hardier coating to ensure that the ring remained undamaged under intense mechanical forces.

For engine makers looking for the ultimate in performance tech, Federal-Mogul says it will offer the new ring design with its patented DLC (diamond-like carbon) coating, which offers the least engine friction, while offering a long lifetime.

It would be truly exciting to see these new LKZ rings end up in a bleeding-edge mass market gas engine design, such as Ford's Ecoboost engines.  It could perhaps offer an additional 5-10 percent (at least) additional extension to fuel economy out of an affordable and easy-to-deploy component upgrade.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Competition at its best
By Morgan3rd on 8/22/2010 3:46:34 PM , Rating: 1
Efficiency is good. Its too bad that gas prices needed to be as high as they are and the upcoming threat of electric vehicles for Detroit to get moving. But at least they have some survival sense.




RE: Competition at its best
By Murloc on 8/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Competition at its best
By knutjb on 8/22/2010 5:06:03 PM , Rating: 4
That would be from lower taxes, the base price of gas differs little around the world.


RE: Competition at its best
By ppardee on 8/23/2010 8:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
We invaded Iraq for security. We certainly didn't do it to lower our gas prices. We have seen a dramatic increase in gas prices since 2003.


RE: Competition at its best
By FaceMaster on 8/26/2010 9:15:19 AM , Rating: 3
We invaded Iraq to eliminate a threat to global peace. To bring justice to bad parts of the world. To liberate and to lead this planet towards a better way of life. And possibly to get some oil in the process.


RE: Competition at its best
By PaterPelligrino on 8/23/2010 1:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
Any improvement in efficiency is a good thing, but it's not like this suddenly solves the world's energy problems. The world hasn't changed, the issues that are driving the development of alternate propulsion systems aren't going away because a gallon of gas now takes us a few more miles.

But one point: since hybrid engines also burn gasoline, isn't this also good news for hybrids?


RE: Competition at its best
By ChronoReverse on 8/24/2010 7:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed.

A large reason the Prius has good efficiency is because it doesn't have a traditional gasoline engine but instead has one that can be more efficient but has a much more narrow RPM band. The hybrid system allows the engine to be operated at this band without losing stop-and-go functionality expected from cars.


RE: Competition at its best
By Targon on 8/23/2010 10:22:57 AM , Rating: 3
For any new technology to get added to a consumer vehicle, anywhere from 7 to 20 years of testing are needed to make sure the technology is safe. The Ford EcoBoost design improvements have had to be in the works from well before the increase in gas prices.

If a NEW technology goes into production and there are even three deaths caused by some unforseen failure or problem, that is a HUGE problem for the auto industry as a whole, and they would not allow that to happen.

Now, think about it, how long do you think EcoBoost took to develop? Think it was only being worked on since gas spiked to over $4/gallon here in the USA three+ years ago?

Now, GM on the other hand still has not shown much in the way of innovation, because they DIDN'T look forward and get better technologies in the development pipeline.

The current speculation on the 2012 Ford Focus is 150+ horsepower with 41MPG highway for fuel efficiency, non-hybrid. Does GM have ANY new technologies that other companies have already been tinkering with? Battery tech, battery charging systems, etc are what we need for all-electric to really come up to speed. Carbon nanotubes are one solution, but is GM helping with that development work? Charging stations might help, but we would need nuclear reactors to be built to supply the increased power demand if that is the technology that will win out, and again, GM isn't in a position to do much there.

Then you have the issue of how much pollution is generated from manufacturing the batteries. Many may consider moving the toxic manufacturing to China or some third world country acceptable, but if the idea is to "save the planet", then reducing pollution HERE by having more pollution and toxic chemicals dumped somewhere else just isn't acceptable.


RE: Competition at its best
By robertisaar on 8/23/2010 2:13:12 PM , Rating: 3
ecoboost is nothing but combining direct injection with turbochargers, something GM did in 2008 with the cobalt SS, 1 year before ford came out with their EB cars...

if you're gonna rip on GM, get the facts right first.


RE: Competition at its best
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 8:47:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
ecoboost is nothing but combining direct injection with turbochargers, something GM did in 2008 with the cobalt SS
Actually, it was before that. The LNF was introduced in the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline in 2006 (also MY2007). I got my car in November 06. :)


RE: Competition at its best
By robertisaar on 8/24/2010 12:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
i stand corrected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Family_II_engine#L...

it seems the general was a few years ahead of ford. :)


RE: Competition at its best
By gregpet on 8/23/2010 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
GM on the other hand still has not shown much in the way of innovation, because they DIDN'T look forward and get better technologies in the development pipeline.


Ever heard of the Volt?

Quote from Agnus MacKenzie, Editor-in-Chief at MotorTrend:

quote:
But perhaps the ultimate irony is it’s GM, long the Silicon Valley poster-child for all that’s wrong with the auto industry, that’s poised to launch a car that may be more significant than anything Tesla is ever likely to build. The Chevy Volt is a thoughtful, innovative, technically advanced vehicle; the prototypes we’ve driven confirm it cleverly combines the best attributes of an electric motor and the gasoline internal-combustion engine. Disruptive technology? Sorry, Elon, there’s more at GM than Tesla.


http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1009_...


Block not head
By Cullinaire on 8/22/2010 3:49:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now a breakthrough in the oil rings that line the cylinder head in gas engines




RE: Block not head
By mindless1 on 8/22/2010 5:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hi, you have a call from Mr. Piston.


RE: Block not head
By chagrinnin on 8/22/2010 5:51:07 PM , Rating: 3
"He thinks you need your head examined" :P


RE: Block not head
By Cullinaire on 8/22/2010 8:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Semantics semantics

I should have known better than to try to change just one word in that description.


RE: Block not head
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2010 9:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Its not semantics. The rings aren't in the cylinder head. They are around the pistons.


RE: Block not head
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2010 10:00:45 PM , Rating: 3
Block is more accurate as well since at least the piston is in the cylinder bore which is part of the block. If your piston comes out of the bore by more than a mm or two into the cylinder head, you're going to be breaking valves most likely.


RE: Block not head
By Cullinaire on 8/23/2010 8:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
My bad; I failed to follow the standard DT way of correcting article errors. Note that the title of my OP was "Block not head", so in fact I meant for the bolded "head" in the post to be replaced by "block".

Sorry for confusing you lot :D


RE: Block not head
By mindless1 on 8/25/2010 12:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
you have another call from Mr. Piston


RE: Block not head
By chrnochime on 8/22/2010 11:03:41 PM , Rating: 4
I'd like to see you put a piston ring on the cylinder head and make that work LOL


RE: Block not head
By Cullinaire on 8/23/2010 8:49:52 PM , Rating: 1
Sometimes silly ideas tend to be the beginnings of breakthroughs!


RE: Block not head
By stimudent on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Block not head
By afkrotch on 8/23/2010 6:17:26 PM , Rating: 1
I'd assume they'd want to push this tech, as opposed to pushing full electrics. A nice way to try and keep the general public in their hands.


RE: Block not head
By infodan on 8/23/2010 9:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
you mean piston head right?


False
By mindless1 on 8/22/2010 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Admittedly, gasoline automobile engine at the turn of the millennium was disappointingly inefficient. While there had been great advances in digital control and performance tuning, the base efficiency of the engine proved relatively similar to designs of two decades prior.


That is not accurate. Take the typical 1980 midsized sedan, it had a carb, had no onboard computer control, had much lower MPG than a 2000 model.

Even if we limit the timeframe to only 1980 to 1990, there was well over 30% improvement from moving to computer control and fuel injection.




RE: False
By mindless1 on 8/22/2010 3:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
What I mean is, "base efficiency" must necessarily consider this factor because the engines were designed to use the computer control, there was only a very short period where they tried to slap a throttle body injector on top of the old engines instead of per cylinder injection.


RE: False
By sprockkets on 8/22/2010 7:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think some of the best advances in engine tech have not been so much MPG but the simple fact that engines can start themselves without the help of hitting the "gas" pedal, or start reliably, especially in cold weather, or have smooth operation thanks to the ECU and fuel injection.


RE: False
By Spivonious on 8/23/2010 8:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
Mileage was better because cars were lighter. Even the Fiesta today weighs over a ton.


RE: False
By Targon on 8/23/2010 10:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
There is always a trade-off between features and engine output. If you have a car with a 125 horsepower engine but doesn't have ANY additional features which increase weight, you may get a more efficient car, but you won't have any features that make driving it comfortable. I would much rather go for a 135 horsepower engine with the extra features and slightly worse gas mileage as a result.

Remember the 1970s, when many cars did not have air conditioning? Do ANY cars not come with AC? How about things like anti-lock breaks? You need to accept that people expect more from even the cheapest car these days than they used to, and that will increase the weight as features are added.


RE: False
By mindless1 on 8/23/2010 10:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
?? You have it totally backwards. Mileage was MUCH worse in '80 than '00 for the same sized cars.

You are trying to compare "model x" like a Fiesta, while I am talking general size class which is ultimately what someone chooses instead of a model name.

So, take the same length/width car from '80, (actually the '80 would be longer because of the engine and transmission configuration for the same passenger and trunk capacity) compare to '00 model, give it the same (either base or upgrade) engine relative to it's era available as an option, and the '80 car had MUCH worse mileage.

Some people are talking trivial things like ABS, A/C, then ignoring other things an '80 automobile had like big chrome bumpers, full frame under it adding weight, longer hood for the larger engine and large box square body style.

... not sure why someone downrated my original post, since it is accurate. I guess people don't like facts or like to guess if they weren't around or old enough to remember what kind of mileage cars from '80 had.

If we were comparing '90 to '00 on the other hand, I tend to agree there wasn't nearly as much difference... the big change in automobiles happened in the mid-'80s when the new computer controlled, fuel injected engined appeared and a few years later for light trucks.


The key is DLC
By bildan on 8/22/2010 6:32:44 PM , Rating: 3
Piston rings just happen to be the example. The real significance of the announcement is the application of "Diamond-Like Coatings" (DLC) to consumer vehicles.

(DLC's are real diamond but presumably can't be called that because of pressure from DeBeers.)

DLC's have been widely used in cost-is-no-object racing engines for some time now - notably on cams and cam followers.

If applied to all sliding parts of consumer vehicles, there could indeed be significant reduction in friction losses. The extremely low friction of DLC's means more efficient motor oils could be used.




RE: The key is DLC
By Howard on 8/22/2010 10:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
DLC is not real diamond. Please read at least a Wikipedia article first.


RE: The key is DLC
By shin0bi272 on 8/23/2010 6:17:47 AM , Rating: 3
I thought he was gonna say downloadable content


Okay article until
By BZDTemp on 8/22/2010 3:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a little to much praise for just Ford as I am not seeing them in the driver seat when it comes to making engines better. In fact I see Ford playing catch up to European and Asian automakers but other than that okay until this:

"It could perhaps offer an additional 5-10 percent (at least) additional extension to fuel economy out of an affordable and easy-to-deploy component upgrade."

If we accept the new piston rings reduce friction 15 percent then we still have vital information missing in order to make claims about possible impact on fuel economy. Are the 15% a figure based to the total friction in an engine or is it 15% less friction than normal piston rings?

I know the friction by piston rings is a big deal in engines so lets say the new piston rings actually reduce the total engine friction by 15% this will then make the engine as a whole operate something like 3% more efficient (Car engines are like 20-30% efficient at the most the rest is simply heat wasted away). Some 5-10 percent (at least) would be nice but I can not see that coming from a 15% reduction in engine friction (which I'm not even sure is what this is).

PS. I've read the press release from FDML and they do not give out other numbers than what was faithfully reported here on DT. I wonder why :-)




RE: Okay article until
By knutjb on 8/22/2010 5:38:31 PM , Rating: 4
The emphasis on Ford might be from their working with FDML. These rings came from the diesel market and Ford just built a new diesel for the US truck market. Sometimes tech transfers well sometimes it requires other modifications to work and does it impact downstream components?

I would guess given diesel pistons are typically bigger than a comparable gas piston the gains might not be as dramatic. It might, however, have significant gains on fuels that don't wash or burn oil off the cylinder walls like NG Propane, alcohol, etc... and don't require as much lubrication on the walls.

Many things have changed in engines over the last 40 years. Moving from carburetors to fi had a dramatic influence on engines and oil. Carbs leaked fuel into the engine after shutting down by killing the ignition, fi does not. That difference made for cleaner engines, was easier on the oil and changed the internal dynamics of the moving parts.

Better metallurgy, materials advancements, machining equipment, and CAD systems have helped to make for more efficient cars. Cars would be more fuel efficient if it weren't for vehicle safety requirements, no I'm not implying that we should remove them just their added weight does have some negative impact to mpg.

quote:
If we accept the new piston rings reduce friction 15 percent then we still have vital information missing in order to make claims about possible impact on fuel economy. Are the 15% a figure based to the total friction in an engine or is it 15% less friction than normal piston rings?
RTA
quote:
The patented oil ring tech, known as an LKZ ring, not only can reduce oil consumption by 50 percent, but also reduces frictional losses by 15 percent (compared to standard conventional oil ring designs) .


Finally from the article:
quote:
Think the standard gas engine can't measure up to hybrid vehicle performance? A new gasoline engine breakthrough, along with recent innovations may invalidate that premise.
If a hybrid has an ICE why couldn't they take advantage of this too?


...
By Kosh401 on 8/22/2010 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tiny change to engine could offer better lubrication for a more pleasurable experience


That's really stretching it for a lubrication/pleasure joke..




RE: ...
By chagrinnin on 8/22/2010 3:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
And what's with "two-piece" design? It's obviously ribbed. :P


Yeah but
By YashBudini on 8/22/2010 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to the gapless compression rings?

Surely their patents must have run out decades ago.




RE: Yeah but
By EJ257 on 8/23/2010 9:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but wouldn't this improvement also benefit the hybrid cars with ICE as well? So really everyone benefits.


Hyperbole
By Dorkyman on 8/22/2010 2:52:20 PM , Rating: 1
Big deal.

As if ring technology hasn't been hashed and rehashed for over 50 years.

I find it unbelievable that suddenly someone has discovered the secret to making a radically-improved piston ring.




RE: Hyperbole
By shin0bi272 on 8/23/2010 6:28:27 AM , Rating: 1
well its not like we dont go down this road once or twice a week with DT. "New solar panels could radically increase efficiency!", "Chevy unveils 230mpg hybrid", "New solar panel design could radically increase efficiency", etc. etc. etc. They bring us new stuff that either A) wont see the light of day for any number of reasons or B) will be brought out (like the Tesla roadster) and die on the vine soon after. The green revolution isnt about saving the planet its about saving your money from you... you and your evil capitalist pig ways.


RE: Hyperbole
By Siki on 8/27/2010 1:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
Way to go. I'm a strong believer in the world is flat theory myself.


Get a grip
By Beenthere on 8/22/2010 7:55:41 PM , Rating: 3
Not new ring tech nor for gas engines. Maybe new to Federal-Mogal and U.S. car makets but not to Goetze and European car makers. In addition you aren't going to see a 10% increase in fuel economy in your wildest dreams even though these are quality piston rings.

FWIW, numerous tests have shown variation in driving styles alter fuel economy by 50+%.




RE: Get a grip
By shin0bi272 on 8/23/10, Rating: 0
Breakthrough?
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/23/2010 9:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
I would hardly call this a breakthrough. A real breakthrough would be something like the MYT engine, which uses a much smaller number of moving parts to produce many times more torque per cubic inch.




?
By Souka on 8/23/2010 4:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
Why wouldn't such a "simple" ring design have been used on a gas-engine before?




Word NAZI's!
By phxfreddy on 8/26/2010 11:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
Who would expect accurate riting on Dully Tech?

...After all they have Tiffany writing for them. If its chuckled headed she believes it!




oil rings
By Richard875yh5 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil rings
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/22/2010 2:48:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This story is coming from a Ford lover and is really stretching the oil rings part of the story.


I wouldn't describe myself as a "Ford lover". I'm just giving them credit where credit is due. While 40 MPG highway on the new Fiesta still isn't quite to the range of diesels like the VW Jetta, it's still very impressive for a gas engine.

Granted the techs they're using (turbocharging, direct injection) are nothing new, but they're utilizing them extremely well and offering them as a mass market option in gas vehicles (via the Ecoboost engine).

And you've got to give Ford some credit for staying economically independent and not having to go before the government begging for a bailout.

That said, I think the real story here is the oil rings. They offer much better performance and should offer some great gains to engine life and fuel efficiency. That's a win-win situation, both financially (in terms of fuel costs, engine maintenance costs) and in terms of emissions.

I don't get it, why the negativity?


RE: oil rings
By Iaiken on 8/22/2010 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Some people are just negative.

This is something ford has already expressed interest in licensing out to some of it's more friendly competitors like Mazda, Jaguar (now owned by Tata), BMW and Peugeot-Citroen (likely in exchange for technology licenses from them).

Don't be too surprised if you see improvements in fords direct injection efforts thanks to Peugeot-Citroen and use of BMW's superior small-scale twin-spool turbos that were developed for the MINI brand.

Ford has since expressed interest in expanding their cooperation with Peugeot-Citroen in the diesel car market, which will make Peugeot-Citroen the largest supplier of diesel engines in the world.

One would think that consumers would be overjoyed to see this level of co-operation since it means lower R&D costs for companies and thus people can have more advanced cars at lower prices than if these corps went forward alone, but I digress.


RE: oil rings
By neihrick1 on 8/22/2010 3:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if how much better the mazda sky engine would be with this, could be up to 30% better, thats assuming the figures on the sky are correct


RE: oil rings
By Ghost42 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil rings
By SPOOFE on 8/22/2010 3:48:28 PM , Rating: 4
Balderdash; "luck" would be if $23.5 billion fell out of the sky for them. Taking out a loan is more one of those... ooh, whattaya call it?... oh yeah, "decisions".


RE: oil rings
By neihrick1 on 8/22/2010 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 4
that huge debt also got them brand loyalty by not taking tax payer money (along with their significantly improved vehicles)


RE: oil rings
By Ghost42 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil rings
By ratbert1 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil rings
By Iaiken on 8/22/2010 10:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone's drinking the Kool-aid.


Leaders don't drink the Kool-aid.


RE: oil rings
By Kurz on 8/23/2010 9:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
Our President does ;)


RE: oil rings
By InvertMe on 8/27/2010 10:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm probably going to hell for this but I LOLed at this for a while.


RE: oil rings
By Ghost42 on 8/23/2010 3:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
The first Chevrolets with fuel injection were offered in 1957, Chrysler about the same time as well.

The 1957 Cadillac Series 70 Eldorado Brougham had power seats w/memory, self leveling air ride, forged aluminum rims, automatic opening and closing trunk. All the stuff you see on high end cars these days.


RE: oil rings
By shin0bi272 on 8/23/2010 6:22:40 AM , Rating: 2
also in 1957 Chrysler had a jet turbine engine powered car.


RE: oil rings
By Ghost42 on 8/23/2010 1:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
That is true, GM was also playing with Jet Powered cars, and iirc Ford was toying with Nuclear Powered car they called the Nucleon in 1958.

Hell, in 1925 Henry Ford was tying to push crop based Ethanol as a fuel instead of gasoline.


RE: oil rings
By Hyperion1400 on 8/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil rings
By Spuke on 8/23/2010 10:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm just giving them credit where credit is due.
Ford's on a friggin roll!! We're thinking about buying another Ford product for my wife to drive instead of the diesel pickup (06 F250) she's driving now. She seems interested in the Edge.


oil engines....
By Zingam on 8/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: oil engines....
By shin0bi272 on 8/23/2010 6:48:54 AM , Rating: 5
well lets see there was the nuclear powered car which was essentially a steam engine run on a piece of uranium about the size of a quarter. that had a 10 or 15 year run life and ran on water essentially. But people got a little skiddish around a nuclear pellet being in their trunk so it never really got good sales.

there's the solar powered car... great if you dont mind driving about 30mph as long as the sun is out.

There's of course the electric vehicles which get up to 100mi per charge which is let all say it together now... not good enough. Plus with EVs you have to wait between 1 and 8 hours to recharge so lets hope you dont have anywhere to be any time soon should you run out of charge on that 20,000 mi. journey. You also have to replace the battery every 3-5 years at a cost of up to 15,000 usd. So they are really not that good of an alternative

Oh theres a french inventor who came up with a car powered by compressed air. The performance is horrible but you only need to have enough battery power to run the compressor for a little while to get the engine running... then wear ear plugs the entire way to your destination because its friggin loud!

Then there's my personal favorite the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The honda clarity has 140bhp, goes 250mi per tank, and the refueling takes about 5 min. not bad stats till you read that when you refuel to get that range your tank must be pressurized to 5000psi with highly flammable hydrogen! At least with gasoline its only the vapors that burn and they have to have the correct fuel air mixture to do so ... hydrogen, the more of it you have the bigger the boom. so technically a good match for today's car culture but realistically a car bomb waiting to happen. Dont let the terrorists find out about these things.

And as an example of the fuel efficiency of today's modern cars... in a race around a track a bmw m3 6cyl gasoline powered car going at the top speed of a prius gets better mileage than the prius. Because when you mash your foot down on the gas pedal in the little eco bug prius it uses only its tiny 85hp gasoline engine and not its electric motor... so in order to get to top speed you have to use tons of gas and that makes it a terrible car to drive over 55mph.

So unless you have some unobtainum power cell laying around youre not using I suggest you either start working on some other alternative or STFU and drive.


RE: oil engines....
By namechamps on 8/23/2010 8:39:10 AM , Rating: 1
There was essentially nothing accurate in your post.

Sure EV have limitations just not the imaginary ones you made up.

quote:
"which get up to 100 mi per charge"
More like up to 240 miles. How many times have you driven more than 240 miles in a day? Can't you even conceive of an EV replacing one of the two vehicles in a two vehicle household?

quote:
"Plus with EVs you have to wait between 1 and 8 hours to recharge"
Doesn't really matter if it is charging at home. given batteries don't charge linearly one can get a substantial charge in less time. Take Tesla Roadster for example you can get a charge good for 30-40 miles in 20 minutes. Not exactly convenient but hardly an emergency.

quote:
"You also have to replace the battery every 3-5 years at a cost of up to 15,000 usd."

Ever manufacturer warranties batteries for 8 years so you 3 year number is pure hyperbole. On Prius (only vehicle with 10+ years experience) many drivers are still using the original batteries 10, 12, 15 years laters. Also you need to consider falling costs. Say battery cost only falls by 15% per year. A decade from now that battery pack will be more like $3K not $15K.

quote:
"Because when you mash your foot down on the gas pedal in the little eco bug prius it uses only its tiny 85hp gasoline engine and not its electric motor..."

Which illustrates a limitation of parellel hybrids. A series Hybrid like Volt for example always uses electric motor for 100% of propulsion granting higher efficiency. once battery pack is depleted a high efficiency single speed generator converts fuel into electricity as needed.


RE: oil engines....
By Iaiken on 8/23/2010 10:15:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
More like up to 240 miles. How many times have you driven more than 240 miles in a day? Can't you even conceive of an EV replacing one of the two vehicles in a two vehicle household?


99% of my driving in Toronto is significantly less than even 100 km round trip and for anything longer than a 5 hour drive, I fly. Personally, we could certainly replace one of the family cars with an EV, but ONLY if it makes economical sense.


RE: oil engines....
By JediJeb on 8/23/2010 4:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"which get up to 100 mi per charge" More like up to 240 miles. How many times have you driven more than 240 miles in a day? Can't you even conceive of an EV replacing one of the two vehicles in a two vehicle household?


But you forgot that he was replying to the original poster who was wanting to take a 20,000 mile vacation drive, so I doubt even 240 miles per charge would get you very far on that trip. And the OP was talking about wanting a new power train for a car you can use for any circumstance that didnt use a normal combustion engine so having the EV as a second car you make short trips with misses the point of the original post.

What you pointed out about EVs is true, but also what the person you replied to was saying about them is also true when taking into account he replied to someone wanting to completely replace the internal combustion engine with something radically different.


RE: oil engines....
By InvertMe on 8/27/2010 10:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Don't ever prove the enviro-haters wrong unless you want rate downs here :) They get offended by the thought of people trying to do things a better way.


RE: oil engines....
By Triple Omega on 8/23/2010 4:27:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Then there's my personal favorite the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The honda clarity has 140bhp, goes 250mi per tank, and the refueling takes about 5 min. not bad stats till you read that when you refuel to get that range your tank must be pressurized to 5000psi with highly flammable hydrogen! At least with gasoline its only the vapors that burn and they have to have the correct fuel air mixture to do so ... hydrogen, the more of it you have the bigger the boom. so technically a good match for today's car culture but realistically a car bomb waiting to happen. Dont let the terrorists find out about these things.

Your facts and priorities are incorrect in this case.

Firstly, a hydrogen filled storage container is not a bomb. Like gasoline vapor it still needs oxygen for the chemical reaction to take place. Since the tank is pressurized no oxygen can enter the tank if it is ruptured. Any chemical reaction that might take place will do so outside the tank. So the worst case scenario would be an ignition source directly outside the tank, which would create a large flame that would be directed away from the rupture.

Secondly, it is precisely the fact that only the gasoline vapors burn that causes a lot of trouble. This because it allows the liquid to freely flow from any rupture below the fuel-level. Allowing it to pool up below the car and emit vapors in a far wider area.

Also, being a carbon based fuel, burning gasoline creates smoke and toxic gases that are more likely to kill a person then the associated fire. Hydrogen and oxygen just create water.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki